> Unfortunately — and Shel was well aware of this very quickly, but of course by that time, it was too late — ISBNs are terribly abused in the United States. The company that issues ISBNs, Bowker, charges a lot of money for ISBNs (from the perspective of small publishers, anyway), and publishers don’t necessarily read all the rules. Small publishers were re-using ISBNs, and they also took their range of ISBNs and numbered through the entire range, rather than respecting the rule that the final character is actually a checksum, and you can only iterate through some of the digits. (It’s actually worse than just not using the last digit, but I’m not getting into that here.)
If there's a single company issuing them how are there companies using ones with invalid checksums?
I suppose if you're someone selling privacy to criminals, it's a lot easier to preconfigure mid-range Android phones to sell than to configure each individual customer phone for maximum privacy. Also, it's not just about keeping your own data private, but about the other person you're communicating with. If you know the other person is using the same phone you can feel safer that it's secure, as opposed to trusting that the other person is taking things seriously and knows what they're doing when configuring their own phone. Plus it makes it easier to enforce things like messages being deleted after a period of time. The extra cost is easy to justify when you're trying to avoid jail time.
You're ignoring the main point of the comment you're replying to, which is that laws like this mean they can arbitrarily charge whoever they like because everyone is constantly in violation of some law. The argument that we should trust the police not to use this power irresponsibly doesn't stand up when they're shown again and again that they are very happy to abuse such powers despite promising not to do so when the law is brought in. The UK government has made it clear they want to prevent anyone from hiding data from them and criminalising encryption and selectively enforcing that law is one way to achieving that.
At this point the data from his computer, at least the data from the flight simulator software, should be released publicly so that those with experience can apply their knowledge to reconstructing the data. It's entirely possible that someone with more knowledge of the software in question, rather than a generic computer expert, might have more luck.
> They were tracking the plane on the Flight Explorer website, which, as they would only realize hours later, simply continued to display an aircraft’s projected path if its transponder stopped broadcasting position information.
I understand the logic of requiring two keys, but why can't I have password + (security key OR single use code). This is what most services support - for something like GitHub I have an authenticator app on my phone or my YubiKey as the second factor, and can use either. That actually provides more redundancy against lost keys/devices than I have now, since if I lose all my Apple devices I'm locked out.
On these sort of cases I'm a little less inclined to blame the justice system. Often there were statisticians or other experts who should have known better advising or testifying to the likelihood of guilt. People shouldn't be convicted of improbability alone, but statistics is hard even for statisticians.
Of course they should have tried to correct the mistake once pointed out, but the justice seems doesn't seem to like doing that.
The Australian case mentioned in the article had a similar theme. Kathleen Folbigg wrote diary entries blaming herself for her kids' deaths, and these were interpreted as admissions of guilt (in fairness they could definitely be read that way). She had four of her own children die of undetermined causes and was basically convicted on the diary entries and the improbability of them all dying. Has been a long and ongoing public debate here (she's still in jail).
This seems like the problem to me. Staff at the school would have probably turned off the light in their classroom at the end of each day regardless, but no credit is given unless you add this system which does the same thing for more money and probably more emissions.
But that adds yet another point of failure, and something with mechanical parts is probably going to wear out much quicker. And if it fails can I still flick the switch, or do I need to replace it?
Apple Silicon chips share memory between the CPU and GPU, would that play into any calculation of the relative benefits? Presumably the GPU isn't getting the full benefits of a GPU optimised memory set up so the difference would be smaller?
Another solution to this problem is to get a standalone numpad and assign the keys as hotkeys. Lots of macro apps allow different functions to be assigned to specific keyboards.
Same problem here in Australia, but honestly I don't blame the students - unis have turned themselves into businesses selling a service, students are just responding to that. And if I'm paying for a course, and I do all the coursework and make a reasonable good faith attempt at the assessment, I think it's reasonable to expect I'll pass. If the content was too hard for a significant portion of students are those student getting anything for their money?
Perhaps I've misunderstood, but is one advantage of a 5 point system that the resulting point are highly and interpreted favourably by review systems that assume a 4.0 maximum? I'm guessing a lot of them don't bother to read the data you provide.
I think this hits the nail on the head. Education seems to have two aims - educating students, and ranking them. I've always strongly believed that those aims are mutually defeating. I'd rather have external measurements of ability (such as the SATs or technical tests or whatever) and just let schools teach.
Hard to believe this even needed to be said, yet the FOSS entitlement continues unabated to this day. The post a few days ago from the developer of curl was pointed example of how bad this has become.
https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2022/12/30/an-m1-for-curl/
Facebook groups used to have this issue. A bunch of us at university got in trouble after being added to an inappropriate group without permission, and trying to explain to admin that we didn't actually join by choice was a nightmare. In that case at least we could have left if we had been paying attention.
I guess it's more about protesting and trying to fight the existence of secret warrants than any practical benefit for users? Which I think is fine if it's the best they can do.
So if they're allowed to reveal they got searched, why the need for the canary? And if it works on a company level, why does it not work on a user level?
It would be interesting to see a company implement this on the individual account level, rather than for the service as a whole. As it stands, while certainly interesting from a legal standpoint, I'm not sure this achieves much other than confirming that secret warrants are in use, and perhaps giving some vague indication of their frequency.
The disadvantage of this approach is that you can't invalidate those devices individually - if one is compromised (i.e. lost), they're all compromised.
Scammers and thieves don't care that you're old and scared of computers. Even if you don't think someone is going to want to bother hacking your email or instagram, surely we can all agree that online banks needs to be as secure as possible? I have trouble believing that someone can be literate yet unable to download Google Authenticator and scan a QR code if they really need to. It's just not asking that much. Someone with accessibility issues will no doubt find it harder, but everyone else is going to need a much better excuse. These are exactly the people that are most vulnerable to being robbed.
It shouldn't be up to these users anyway, a bank can and should insist on MFA. I think you'll find most people will figure it out just find once they don't have a choice.
This annoys me a lot - I do sympathise with the fact that these services are regularly bombarded with users unable to log in, but modern authentication tools have existed for a while now and it's time everyone learned to use them. A lot of services insist on including your phone number as a backup authentication method, making you vulnerable to simjacking, or your email address for the same purpose (basically offloading the authentication problem to someone else). That's if you can't bypass it altogether.
For services that allow it I have both a TOTP app on my phone and a YubiKey registered, which I figure is sufficient redundancy. Other people could have an old phone registered as well if they don't want to buy a security key. It's a very minor hassle to set up and I can't see why people can't do it.
That hasn't been the case for me, and I've been taking the medications for a while now. I don't drink coffee or any kind of caffeine so I can't compare, but while the effect of the medication did reduce slightly after a while, I certainly haven't become noticed tolerance to the extent that the medication doesn't work any more. On the contrary I'm significantly better off since I started taking them. Perhaps some are more susceptible to developing a tolerance?
What seems to link a lot of these cases is that the pilots tell the plane to do something and the plane decides it knows better. Throw up all the warning you want, but a computer shouldn't be able to override the pilot's decisions.
It's weird to me that the pilots didn't notice that the engine thrust hadn't increased. I realise they have a lot to monitor and it all happened quite quickly, but it seems like not having your engines at 100% when they're supposed to be would stand out. I'd be interested to see what they would have seen and how obvious it was.
The only reason I can think to keep it secret is they want the data from button presses to inform the cycle times, although surely there are better ways.